Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Justice Dept. secretly obtained AP phone records
Boy, the hits just keep coming and coming. This occurred in April and May of 2012, not during the Nixon administration, in case it wasn't immediately clear.
http://news.yahoo.com/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe-202010831.html
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.
In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
Re: Justice Dept. secretly obtained AP phone records
Another article on this:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/justice-department-ap-phone-records/65184/
Last Friday, the Associated Press received a letter from the Department of Justice informing the news agency that the government had acquired two months of telephone records ? incoming number, outgoing number, and call duration ? for a more than 20 lines associated with the agency. Among those were phones in the Associated Press offices, personal lines for reporters, and the AP's phone in the House of Representatives press gallery.The letter the AP received has not been made public, but it apparently provided no reason for the seizure. According to an article published by the AP, it may relate to a May 2012 article published by the Associated Press revealing an Al-Qaeda bomb plot. That plot, originating in Yemen, was targeted for the anniversary of the death of Osama bin Laden, but was foiled when the device was given to a CIA double agent. The AP broke the story, holding it for several days at the request of the White House. According to the AP, the reporters on that story owned numbers that were among those subpoenaed, indicating that Justice may be trying to identify the source of the leak.Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of the AP sent a scathing letter in response to the revelations. Calling it a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" that is "a serious interference with AP?s constitutional rights," Pruitt writes:There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the news-gathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP?s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP?s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.The AP demanded that the department to return the data to the AP and destroy its records.During his confirmation hearings to lead the CIA, John Brennan was asked about the AP's story on the Yemen plot. In his response to a question from Senator Jim Risch, Brennan said:The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made several days ? and possibly even a week ? earlier when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it. Various reporters were asking questions of our press people that raised alarm bells. ...The U.S. Attorney?s Office for the District of Columbia is conducting a criminal investigation of these leaks, and I participated in a voluntary interview with those conducting the investigation.This afternoon, that office released a statement indicating that it "takeRequests by The Atlantic Wire for comment from the AP have not yet been returned.
But hey, who needs the 4th Amendment, right?
It's because I'm finally at the point in the school year where I can relax and get into politics again. The stress of the test is over. Plus there's been enough "mourning time" (I'm overstating, but you get what I mean) since the election for me not to feel burned out. Last, the Oscars are over, so I am not listening to podcasts each week to try to win.
yeah I get that. I think my problem is I'm so sick of politics and no matter how annoyed at the govt. and what is going on, there is really nothing I can do about it. So I'm in the avoidance mode right now. I literally didn't know anything about benghazi until last thursday when I was at the Inlaws and they brought it up. Then I saw someone of face book who is democratic post something about the Iraq war so I new that argument was coming.
I think blaming this on the call for an investigation seems all well and good until you realize that there would have been a limited number of people who would have had access to this information. As part of their top secret clearances they agree to be subject to checks, etc. You could have just as easily gone after the records of those people.
Then again, the press had this coming. They've given Holder pass after pass after pass. They don't really have the right to cry when he comes after them...
Interesting article on the AP's reaction to this
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/inside-the-ap-fear-determination-91338.html?hp=t1_3
I felt this way for a few months. There are certain stories that really pique my interest, like the PPACA (health reform), Benghazi, and the corruption scandals. Many topics that appeal to a lot of people don't appeal to me that much. I started to read an older book on Hillary but stopped because I just couldn't maintain the interest. If she's nominated, she'll win in a walk, no doubt in my mind, she'll get all the swing states.
no doubt in my mind about that! That's pretty much what I was saying to the IL's last week that brought up the whole benghazi thing. FIL actually thinks she won't win if all that stuff comes out about benghazi....if the media really reports it. Meh...I don't really have that faith LOL. I'm finally feeling like politics are corrupt
How do you figure this?
This is a much bigger story, IMO, than Benghazi or the IRS debacle. Holder needed to go long ago and I don't understand why Obama hasn't already given him the boot.
I have to say, though, it's kind of ironic that the Republicans killed the bill that would have prevented this from happening in the first place: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2035
as far as I understand that bill had more to do with them actually testifying vs. the legal standard of what information could be subject to search. There has been very little legal justification shown for the overly broad search performed by the Justice Dept other than "because they could". When you do this type of search there is usually some sort of notice requirement and/or specific scope that has to be defined. It's like when they wiretap gangster's phones. If they start talking about little suzie's softball game the agents have to stop listening. There has to be a specific target and limit to the search. Of course, the person responsible for enforcing these rules is: SURPRISE! Eric Holder.
As far as the press giving him a pass- he outright admitted that the drones were unconstitutional but that they were going to use them anyway. You know, the guy responsible for upholding the constitution? Very few hard questions from the press about that and even smaller public uproar. In keeping with the theme of the administration, anytime something uncomfortable comes up he's always unaware of it. What's with these guys? I mean I'm sure the head of BP was not personally aware of the exact failure of the systems (especially since they were partially cause by the work of independent contractors) prior to the huge oil spill, yet when it happened, the public held him personally accountable and he sat on the hot seat with the public, the press AND the White House from Day One. The White House in fact organized special investigations by three separate agencies within 2 days of the spill occurring. Meanwhile it took 3 days just to get one simple sanitized statement on Benghazi out, but I digress..
Congress held Eric Holder in contempt for his failure to produce requested information that they subpoenaed regarding the Fast and Furious debacle but since the person in charge of enforcing such contempt proceedings is again: SURPRISE Eric Holder nothing ever came of it. It was proven he lied about when he first heard about it (reports directed at him in June of 2010 and then frequently after that) yet he testified that he'd only heard about it "a few weeks ago" in May of 2011. I can't imagine someone else wouldn't have been driven out of town by the press for such bald faced lying yet, no brouhaha just business as usual.He also testified in June of 2012 that he read the affidavits and their summaries and there was nothing in the wiretap affidavits that suggested yet his own inspector general testified that there was.
With regard to prosecuting medical marijuana cases Holder told the Judiciary committee in June that the Justice Department is not using "limited resources to go after people acting in conformity with state law." and basically accused them of making it up. Yet prosecutors have brought more than a dozen lawsuits seeking the forfeiture of commercial properties that house marijuana shops. The actions pressure owners to either evict these controversial tenants or face costly legal battles or the loss of their buildings.The goal is to scare owners into cutting their ties to such tenants and to help the Justice Department combat the medical marijuana industry, estimated at $1.7 billion annually, without confronting it head-on with costly and potentially embarrassing criminal prosecutions, industry sources and legal experts said. Also the DOJ has threatened state employees who comply with their states' marijuana laws. If you google you can find case upon case of federal prosecution and raids on medical marijuana facilities both before and after he testified.
However thanks to our press, our public knows WAY more about Kim Kardashian's divorce, who Kristen Stewart was shacking up with and Angelina Jolie's breast operation than any of this because THOSE are the types of top stories when you open their website. You usually have to scroll wayyyyy down the page to even find mention of congressional hearings and even then it's usually fairly sanitized. So based on all of this, I would say he's gotten a pass because I can remember a time when if something like these incidents happened it would be the lead, follow-up and breaking news story on every single news station (Iran-contra, etc.) I was very young when Iran Contra happened but I very much remember the images of Ollie North looking pretty darn uncomfortable in front of Congress as well as Fawn Hall thanks to pretty much not being able to avoid it if you tried (which as a young person I'm pretty sure I did LOL). Then again maybe he made the news so much because he had the guts to admit he lied.
Then again he pretty much set the precedent when he failed to pursue voter intimidation charges during the first election despite videos of people standing at polling places with billly clubs yelling racial slurs. What more did they need to do- give them Big Gulps or deny them Plan B to warrant prosecution?
But this is true of the media in general - the last time the president really got a hard time from the press was Clinton. Certainly he didn't get a pass on the Lewinsky scandal. Nobody asked Bush the hard questions about Iraq, or Katrina, or pretty much anything else. Nobody in the press has been asking the hard questions of ANYONE in the past 10+ years, presidents, Congresspeople, CEOs, anyone. That's because the news has become nothing more than entertainment now. Frankly, everyone flips past the pages on Congressional hearings to get to the stories about the Kardashians - that's why the media acts the way they do. If you think that the people who run the media have any motivations besides making as much money as possible, you haven't been paying attention. Who owns these stations? It's certainly not Occupy Wall Street - it's enormous multinational conglomerates whose main concern is their share price.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes (whom ABC news has reported to having a masters in fiction) is CBS News President David Rhodes brother?
Why is it that judges are required to recuse themselves when they have even a slight relationship with anyone to do with a case, but its not required of the men and women covering our government?
As for dissing on the media conglomorates:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/
However, you are correct that the news organizations pander to what the public wants and that they are driven by keeping their views tuned in.
So media bias just began when Obama took office?
The reason that judges are required to recuse themselves is because they are part of the government, and there is a *law* that they be impartial.
Last time I checked, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox/NewsCorp, Viacom, Time Warner, etc. were all part of private industry and there is no law requiring the media to report things one way or another. Unless you are suggesting that the government regulate the media to ensure that it remains neutral.
I absolutely would not want the government to regulate media and no I don't believe media bias began with Obama. Heck look how much the press protected (and in some ways continues) protect the reputation of people like JFK. People get into journalism usually because they want to make a difference in the world and they see an opportunity to do so by shining the light on their perception of what is news. That is always going to be done according to your own agenda or what you think is "right" whether you work at MSNBC or Fox News. I do have issue however with the selective release of information to some news outlets vs. others and only allowing favorable reporters into the press corp and actually going as far as demonizing anyone not favorable to your administration even in your speeches. Sure they have all done it and I don't care for it when either side does it.
Thanks to the motivations I mentioned above, journalism is a job that tends to appeal more to people of a liberal persuasion than a conservative one because it sort of comes with the wiring. It's the same reason more teachers tend to be liberal and social workers tend to be liberal. It comes from your personality and your worldview. People with a strong drive to "change the world" are going to be drawn to professions viewed as world-changing professions. To play this game to pretend it doesn't and that the liberal point of view doesn't far more favorable press as a result is absolutely laughable. Fox News trends right and so does the Washington Times. When I read those things I go into it knowing that and with a critical eye. However, most people want to get the vapors at the mere thought that ABC or CNN or any other news source is anything other than 100% virtuous and bipartisan. They need to just own it.
What I have even less use for though is public agencies and our government showing favoritism towards one side or the other. It's pretty hard for a right leaning news organizations to report on press conferences and such that they aren't even invited to. Secret press conferences prior to public ones bring out the hairy eyeball from me.
As far as Bush goes, I think you are off the mark there too. It seems to me that after the initial day or so of coverage of Katrina the majority of the newscasts and stories seemed to be much handwringing over what Bush was doing wrong. I saw countless man on the street type interviews calling Bush racist and asking where he was. I saw coverage of Cindy Sheehan's activities and crusades against Bush on all of the major networks ad nauseum.I don't see the same type of thing when it has come to Obama's potential wrongdoings. I honestly only think Clinton was ever negatively portrayed in the news to excess because it was a sex scandal and in order to have a sex scandal there has to be someone in the wrong and he was the #1 player. Sex scandals sell not unlike the Kardashians. What stories that would portray Obama in a negative light have you seen as the opening story time and time again on the Today Show, 20/20, NBC Nightly news, etc.?
JUST WOW. What a crazy jump from my suggesting that those in both the government and the media try to be more impartial to my suppossed suggestion that the government regulate the media....
And why am I supposed to listen to your reasoning again?
As for media bias, sure it has been around since the beginning of time, but there is a huge difference between ignoring a president's picadillos and discussion the tingling one gets when one hears a speech.
Why many cannot see the difference (and yes, I do believe that Fox News falls under this banner too) is what perpetuates the problem.